To keep guns away from criminals is *not* the point of the bill.

Seriously? You question others' intelligence when you cannot even spell the word? It is probably best for you to go ask your beloved NRA permission before you post your drivel as you are a lousy spokesperson

The Cons complain about people not having a photo ID for the right to vote, but when it comes to the right to bear arms, they are all about making it as easy as possible for anyone to get one. They just get their friends at the NRA to lobby Congress to make sure there are no restrictions at all to purchase a killing machine, but when someone wants to vote, make them jump through hoops.

God probably accepts this guy as he is, no matter what he looks like. Get some sense and humanity before you invoke God's name to insult somebody.

Annual Costs from the NRA's insurance Vendor: $47 or $67 depending on liability limit. From: http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/forms/Excess_Personal_Liability_Application.pdf

COVERAGE
$100,000 Limit
Excess Personal Liability……………$47 annual premium $ $47.00
Optional Self-Defense*……………...$118 additional premium $
Total Annual Premium $
- OR -
$250,000 Limit
Excess Personal Liability……………$67 annual premium $ $67.00
Optional Self-Defense*……………...$187 additional premium

Nice, thank you much Mark. That seems fairly reasonable. If more people participated, wouldn't costs additionally go down?

I'm sure the insurance lobby would be happy about mandated insurance.

That's not true, it would either accomplish some amount of people deciding not to own guns because they can't afford insurance or those who can afford it purchasing it to be in compliance so that they aren't financially ruined should some extreme circumstances occur.

It likely would not be a "per-gun" premium. It likely will be based on a whole host of factors including risk, much like car insurance is risk adjusted. Number of guns per person would likely factor into the risk/cost ratio.

And that will reduce gun related crimes how exactly?

Home owner and renters insurance often gives a discount for things like additional fire or carbon monoxide detectors, fire extinguishers, or deadbolts on doors. It's possible gun insurance could give discounts for similar material and behavioral safety measures (storage at a gun range only? Gun safe or other appropriate storage? Additional gun safety training courses?) More responsible owners means more responsible gun ownership, which hopefully means less accidents and less crime. Insurance adds a financial incentive for responsible ownership.

3 ways:
1. reduce the amount of guns in the market, thus -- less guns = less gun violence
2. reduce domestic assault with firearms as any fool who brandishes a gun now become ineligible, and if they are still eligible, insurance way too expensive
3. all people with guns charged a risk adjusted rate based on many factors - married, education, kids, criminal history, credit history, etc. For some (many) they may decide it is too expensive to have a gun, again, less market demand = less guns = less gun violence

Mark, I bet there are lots of unicorns and leprechauns with pots of gold at the end of rainbows in your little imaginary utopia?

Wow, someone who knows how to use their brain and actually think things through with reason and research is compared to someone who believes in unicorns? No wonder your party lost. No wonder your NRA now has a counter organization with teeth and financing. With people like you, your gunner movement is in big trouble.

I don't now about you, but any fool who drives with less than $500k liability is asking for trouble. Now, property damage liability is different in most states and a lot lower. But the liability limit for guns would most definitely include liability for personal injury and should be at least $250k per person/insured (not per gun)

Your analogy does not hold water. You cannot own a tank, you cannot ride a moped on the interstate, and you cannot drive a bus or a semi without the proper license. Think again and come up with a better comparison.

Mark you continue to prove your lack of knowledge and true grasp of logic with every post. You also sound an awful lot like Frank but that is another issue. You can legally own a tank, I know a few people that do and one of them is here in Maryland. You can legally ride a moped on the interstate as long as that moped has a motor cycle / scooter registration tag. You can also ride one on the interstate without a tag just as you can drive a bus or a semi without the proper license, and the only difference then is you are doing so illegally. So logically speaking your claim that his analogy does not hold water does not even hold air but we are certainly catching on that you are really full of a lot of hot air yourself and seem to enjoy spewing it every chance you get.

You forgot to finish you sentence.. "Mark is a tool"... for reason, logic and intelligence. With apologists like you, its no wonder the NRA is feeling the heat and old Wayne is more paranoid than ever (he has to pander to those who can't think themselves out of bed unless Fox told them how.

Great idea, maybe Raskin should have this suggested to him?

The typical right-wingers response when they cannot argue with any sense or reason - they personally call names.

Mark is still a tool.